Happy Independence Day!

[ZeaLitY]

If you don't have the money to support a baby, put it up for adoption.

In response to your general ideas about abortion, I'd recommend this post by Lord J Esq on why the right to control one's body overrides the "human" in vitro. But this particular sentence of yours is humorous to me, because it's indicative of how a lot of right-wingers shoot themselves in the foot. Yeah, put it up for adoption, where it can be looked after through state-funded services, child support, or other government-enforced payments and welfare programs. Yipes! I thought conservatives were against welfare? You've just created an entire childhood of payments!

Personally, I don't give a fuck about your rants.

Shi-i-iiiit, I just lost the raffle on whether Serge would care about this particular post. All those who bet against me, your check's in the mail for tomorrow. Wish me luck next time; he's gotta care sooner or later!

If you're THAT offended by my Bible quote, then delete the post. Whatever it takes to stop my "Christian Dominionism."

Oh, your post isn't "offensive"; it was a convenient conversation-starter.

The same people who constantly criticize Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, or any  for trying to force their beliefs down everyones' throats are essentially doing the same thing by telling them there is no God.

Spreading reason and logic are ethical endeavors. When atheists create an organization that facilitates human evil across the world and preaches antiquated moral codes and superstitious beliefs that confound rational thought (not likely), perhaps you can lump it in that nefarious group with other religion. 'Till then, we're the good guys who are trying to move humanity out of the stone age. If you'd like a few other reasons for my apparent "militancy" about this:

Today, it's almost certain that:

• A normal Islamic woman had to wear a burka.
• An extremist Islamic man prepared for a suicide attack.
• A normal Christian contributed a donation to or verbally defended an oppressive political platform.
• An extremist Christian abused or discriminated against a gay person.
• A normal Hindu man lived in poverty because of the caste system of India.
• An extremist Hindu plotted to attack Muslims in Pakistan.
• A normal Buddhist relinquished a healthy ambition or desire.
• An extremist Buddhist planned to attack a Christian in Sri Lanka.
• A normal Jewish person circumsized a male baby, causing traumatic pain.
• An extremist Jew verbally endorsed Israel's human rights violation in the recent conflict. (I'd say committed, but the conflict's in a lull right now.)

All are religiously motivated.

I'll stop bashing religion with words when religion stops fucking bashing humanity with almost every available tool of destruction.

Now, the Buddhist thing in Sri Lanka probably died down by now, but you can substitute sexist Buddhist practices and prejudices easily there. In fact, you can substitute an entire range of evil for any of those examples. And they're happening every day. Humanity can't afford to sit around and let ignorant religion continue pulling the entire world down, and my conscience definitely won't let me sit around.

[IAmSerge]

Look, just because I can't out argue you (trust me, if I cared enough, I could and would), doesn't mean my pastor can't.
He may not be able to refute what you say about other religions, but he could put you in your place when it comes to ours.
I'm not saying this to pretend to scare you or something, because I know you couldn't be scared at such a thing.
I'm saying this because no matter what you spout and say, he could and would always have something better to refute with.

So logically, I'm on his side.

[Truthordeal]

Spreading reason and logic are ethical endeavors.

Really? Well, you just gave me a blank check to spread whatever Christian propaganda I want. A simple faith is reason and logic to me. God created the universe, and set laws that we know today as science that we know and love.

In fact, by your logic, its my obligation and duty as a human being to spread my particular brand of logic and reason. You can't have one without the other.

That's logical and reasonable, right? If not I would LOVE to see what science had come up with to answer that question. And before you answer that, remember that your answer is based on the same faith and is subject to the same scrutiny that my religion is.

Moreover, this discussion should better be saved or moved to another thread. Where the thread ended up is far from what the topic name implies.

[ZeaLitY]

Really? Well, you just gave me a blank check to spread whatever Christian propaganda I want. A simple faith is reason and logic to me. God created the universe, and set laws that we know today as science that we know and love.

And who created God? Religion and faith are some of the least defensible things around. What's a more simple solution; universal science, or reliance on a supernatural being? You can't even go that far, because "supernatural" is an impossibility. God can't defy logic, but God must if he's to be responsible for the creation of the infinitely complex universe. "But, God stands outside the laws of the universe as its creator!"

Theological arguments always end up retreating into more impossibly absurd rationalizations of their contradictory dogma, but trying to defend the illogical with a logical argument (with some custom-tailored lapses for the miraculous) is futile and ridiculous to begin with. Religion holds on because it's drilled into children; because people fear death; because it commands a position of authority; because of countless other traditions and entrenched positions. And if religion ever ventures outside its bully pulpit to stand scientific or argumentative test, it fails every single time. And thus, it commands its followers to ignore science, logic, and reason:

Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding.

But reason is the binding glue of the universe, which is more vast and beautiful than anything dreamed by the wacky prophets of the bronze age. Reason is why we can wake up each morning and expect to find the same bed. Reason is why we can fix a car and expect it to start afterward. Reason is how we've increased technology and education and carried humanity into this digital age. Reason is what will carry us to the stars. And reason is in direct opposition to religion. Whoever uttered the quote "Where is your Messiah now?" could not have estimated how correct it would become. Where is God, now that he's been beaten out of the home, the hearth, the altar, the classroom, the human understanding of the universe, and reason itself?

[Ramsus]

Before anyone can reasonably assume logic as the foundation of their beliefs, they have to give up everything they believed before and begin from a blank slate. Otherwise, you will inevitably fall victim to your own bias and reach false conclusions.

I always thought that was fairly obvious.

[IAmSerge]

Moreover, this discussion should better be saved or moved to another thread. Where the thread ended up is far from what the topic name implies.

Indeed.  For some reason whenever Zeality sees anything related to religion, he feels the urge to step up and preach to us the good news of athiesm.  Which really isn't going to do shit other than insult me, because the only way he sees fit to do it is to degrade the contested belief with his stereotypes, which in this case is my belief.

Science cannot determine and prove the beginning of the universe to be the big bang or anything before it, and deep down, every scientist has to admit that something cannot come from nothing, based upon the elementary laws of this universe.

Religions cannot prove either that the universe was created by an almighty being.

So, logically, if neither case can be proven or determined to be true, whilst neither can be disproven, then either case has a chance to be reality.

In the lack of existance of an almighty being, when death occurs, "your soul" doesn't even exist and thusly goes no where and theres nothign to worry about.

However, in existance of an almighty being, and in this case the existance of a heaven and hell scenario, you can either be eternally blessed with a wonderful existance in one, or be eternally cursed and have a miserable and painful existance in the other...

So, logically, since neither are disprovable or provable, then the chance of them being truthful is equal.  If one were to choose one of the two to believe in, disregarding any sort of politics and rules involved or not involved with either of them (because there are christian liberals and conservative athiests), then to believe in a lack of almighty being would mean one would have a 50% chance of being right... and if one is wrong, then he/she would get the short end of the stick, so then one would have a 50% chance of getting an eternity of suck.   Believing in an almighty being, however, would mean one would also have a 50% chance of being wrong... but what if he/she IS wrong?  Well, then they have nothing to worry about because they would just go into a state of nonexistance.  And if they are right, then they would go into an eternal state of happiness.

So, to me, the logic makes sense:
do I want a 50% chance of being sent to a lifetime of suck, or do I want 100% insurance against anything bad happening to me after I die?

And back on topic:  I had a fun 4th.  Happy 5th!

[Truthordeal]

Logic trumps everything, huh...so no religion, empathy, sympathy, emotion, love or anything that's illogical, Mr. Spock?

Ok then. Let's do as the Czech's did not too long ago and ban couples who have any sort of genetic defect from having children. In fact, let's go further and kill any child or adult that has any strain of genetic defect. That's logical right? The government won't have to spend money to support them, neither will the parents, the economy and normal people will end up better, right?

But wait, what's the definition of genetic defect? Is homosexuality, which many scientists believe is caused by genetics considered a defect? Well, why not? It inhibits the flow of humanity. The male/female ratio is damaged, and in a perfect society run on logic, that can never happen.

Furthermore, no one should have sex any more for pleasure. That is detrimental to humanity, as it leads to various STD's that hurt mankind. Abortions should also be illegal, as they have no logical reason to.

If anyone here read The Giver, by Lois Lowry in seventh grade, that's the type of world you can expect.

Zeality, the main problem with your argument is that you seem to believe that atheists are incapable of falling to the own delusions of their logic. I don't support everything the Vatican says, or what Jerry Fallwell says for that matter. I'm a free thinker, and my thinking is that its more logical for a deity to have created the universe and set laws on how the universe works.

Who created God? I dunno. I'm not supposed to. I'm a human, not a deity. At least my faith allows me to admit that I don't know.

In fact, there's a quote I like from the Quran on this subject.

"Trust in Allah, but tie up your horse." Have faith in God, but use common sense above all else. Unfortunately, as more atheists lock into their own separate theology, they tend to lose all perspective and common sense.

[ZeaLitY]

Logic trumps everything, huh...so no religion, empathy, sympathy, emotion, love or anything that's illogical, Mr. Spock?

This is a false dilemma. You are implying that reliance on reason instead of religion precludes empathy, compassion...basically every positive human emotion, as well as ethical behavior. That's just not true! And thanks for the compliment! Mr. Spock was worth his weight in gold.

Ok then. Let's do as the Czech's did not too long ago and ban couples who have any sort of genetic defect from having children. In fact, let's go further and kill any child or adult that has any strain of genetic defect. That's logical right? The government won't have to spend money to support them, neither will the parents, the economy and normal people will end up better, right?

How's this related to religion? It is reasonable to support those with genetic defects or disabilities so that they can have productive and fulfilling lives. It is reasonable to improve medical science so that gene therapy can help remove incidence of disability in successive generations. It is reasonable to make no difference between those with disabilities and those without in terms of their humanity, and to treat them as equals. These are all humanistic ethics, free of religion.

And since eugenics gets scapegoated so often, let's not forget that the posterchildren of evil science—the Nazis—facilitated their own rise, government, and war through cult-like religious appeal. But it wasn't only politics; the language of religion and appeals to God were plentiful in Nazi propaganda.

But wait, what's the definition of genetic defect? Is homosexuality, which many scientists believe is caused by genetics considered a defect? Well, why not? It inhibits the flow of humanity. The male/female ratio is damaged, and in a perfect society run on logic, that can never happen.

Homosexual behavior has been well-documented in thousands of animal species. Even if some kind of judgment based on pure logic had to be passed on it, it'd get a resounding KEEP vote because it adds spice and variety to the universe. Religion, for all its apparent compassion and empathy that flourishes in the absence of logic, seems to be the principal proponent of hatred towards gays.

Furthermore, no one should have sex any more for pleasure. That is detrimental to humanity, as it leads to various STD's that hurt mankind. Abortions should also be illegal, as they have no logical reason to.

You're shooting yourself in the foot with this. Living like a reasonable human being means enjoying and discovering new experiences and living a fulfilling life, which can and should include plenty of consensual sex. If anything, religion has been scathingly anti-human and anti-sexual, from the Dark Age demonization of the human body right up to the modern stigmatization of contraceptives, promotion of abstinence, and focus on sexual sin and the law of chastity. In a world where masturbating or consensual, mature sex can relieve stress, religion is standing by to tell you how deeply you've sinned. The humanists and atheists? They're too busy enjoying it for what it is. It's the only reasonable thing to do.

Zeality, the main problem with your argument is that you seem to believe that atheists are incapable of falling to the own delusions of their logic. I don't support everything the Vatican says, or what Jerry Fallwell says for that matter. I'm a free thinker, and my thinking is that its more logical for a deity to have created the universe and set laws on how the universe works.

Who created God? I dunno. I'm not supposed to. I'm a human, not a deity. At least my faith allows me to admit that I don't know.

But this is intellectually dishonest. Logic and the scientific method mean gathering evidence, forming hypothesis and testing them, and then documenting the results, which are always subject to change with the discovery of new phenomena. When you lose your car keys, you may formulate two hypotheses (they're under the couch cushion or left on the kitchen counter), gather evidence through observation, and then find the keys. Religion, on the other hand, starts with the assumption that God exists, and tries to rationalize the universe to fit this conclusion. A religious person would consult some kind of ritual that might tell her that her keys are buried in the neighbor's yard, and when she discovers they aren't there, well, she'll do what most religious people do when confronted with reality: block their ears and invent some kind of divine rationalization. "Oh, but it was a test from God to see if I'd follow his faith even to dig up a neighbor's yard..."

"Trust in Allah, but tie up your horse." Have faith in God, but have common sense. Unfortunately, as more atheists lock into their own separate theology, they tend to lose all perspective and common sense.

Common sense dictates that men and women are equal, and yet female inferiority is a cornerstone of religion in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and about everything else. How can one have common sense about something that's blatantly nonsensical? Religion has no claim or ownership on humanity—including its empathy, compassion, love, curiosity, and capacity to reason.

[V_Translanka]

I'm sorry ONSLAUGHT and anyone else who thinks this religion (or lack thereof) talk doesn't belong here, but fuck your hotdogs, fireworks and whether or not you should pitch or catch, THIS is what America and Freedom means to me and I think it's great (or at least interesting)!

note: For safety reasons, I do not condone the literal fucking of hotdogs or fireworks.

[Truthordeal]

Alright, I think I understand the misconception here.

Your idea of a "Christian," or anyone religious for that matter, are the barbarians of the 1200's or the slave owners of the 1800's. Not, say, Galileo Galilei, who, despite being crushed intellectually by the tyrants that the Pope and the Vatican were at that point in history, was a very logical man of science and a true Christian.

You've got your head so far in the history books about what people, generally religious people, I'll admit, have done wrong that you can't see or fail to admit what good they serve in the present, despite their faith.

Your perception is flawed and illogical. You've painted all Christians as Jerry Falwell wanna-be's, when they're not. It's stereotypical and the exact thing you're trying to fight against.

Most of us are tolerant, and do all we can to not be swept up in the whirlwinds of popular pastors. We're not haters, and we're not ignorant. We're people. And more often than not we understand that we if we wait for God to pour us a cup of coffee, it probably won't get done.

Remember earlier this year when scientists in Zurich wanted to test antimatter, despite the vast risk it had for creating a blackhole on Earth? Use your logic; risking everyone's lives to tinker with a fuel source. By the way, what great findings did we get from that?

In the end, it will be science that does us in before religion.

Back when men fought with sticks, they might kill each other, but the cost of warfare would be too great. Then came steel swords, and gun powder, and planes, and bombs, and nuclear bombs, and then anti-matter.

At any point did it seem logical to slow down on technology enough so that warfare wouldn't become anything more than a man pushing a button?

Christians understand the value of science. But we also have an innate morality that lets us see when science goes too far and delves too far into matters that humankind shouldn't meddle with.

A government run by a church is not a government at all. I think all of us can agree on that, Christian or otherwise. America is not run by a church. In fact, the Constitution was painstaikingly worded so that America couldn't be run by a church.

Likewise, a government run on the Secular Church that has grown since the time of Nietzche, is also just as damnable.

Any system so single minded as to run simply on religion or secularism is abhorrent. On that, all of us can agree.

Women aren't being oppressed today, neither are blacks, Asians, Latinos, Muslims or any other ethnic or racial minority, at least not in America.

In Iran, gays and women are murdered for stepping out of their traditional roles. A government based on religion.

In Soviet Russia, Ukrainians were brutally murdered in gulags. A government based on pure secularism.

Right now in America, we have a government that runs on both, and should remain on both, to ensure the greatest amount of humanity and progress capable.

[ZeaLitY]

Your perception is flawed and illogical. You've painted all Christians as Jerry Falwell wanna-be's, when they're not. It's stereotypical and the exact thing you're trying to fight against.

The moderates enable the extremists. The Catholics who throw a dollar in the collection plate tacitly enable and endorse the Pope's ridiculous actions and hate-speech. Organizations are organizations; the foundation upholds the eye. How much quicker would Sunnis be to condemn their explosive extremists if they weren't religious?

Remember earlier this year when scientists in Zurich wanted to test antimatter, despite the vast risk it had for creating a blackhole on Earth? Use your logic; risking everyone's lives to tinker with a fuel source. By the way, what great findings did we get from that?

You're mistaken; there was no vast risk. In fact, the scientists went forward with it because there was no vast risk.

Christians understand the value of science. But we also have an innate morality that lets us see when science goes too far and delves too far into matters that humankind shouldn't meddle with.

This is patently absurd and hilarious, given how much religion has been the cause of war in human history. You're approaching Krispin levels of Christian revisionism, even if you're acknowledging that Christians were brutal in the past. Since when did you gain the moral high ground from the crusades? Christians are still discriminating, endorsing murder (well, scratch that; they're outright murdering), promoting ignorance...nothing has changed except the methods and the laws reining religious excess in.

Christians have been denying science from the day it threatened its myth. Galileo and the first astronomers were savagely persecuted for proving biblical ideals wrong. But wait, now the universe is "evidence of intelligent design." And electricity? One sect of religious people shun it (the Amish), and yet other Christians use it to reach greater audiences. Science has always had to thrash against religion, which challenges and subverts it. How wonderful the quality of life we could all be enjoying right now if human curiosity hadn't been so brutally snuffed out by dogma.

Women aren't being oppressed today, neither are blacks, Asians, Latinos, Muslims or any other ethnic or racial minority, at least not in America.

...You just exceeded the limit. If this is your belief, you've come 10 years too early to argue your case. Return to the debate when you actually display some of this "innate morality" and empathy that Christianity apparently gives you. To deny that even women aren't being oppressed when so much sociological and scientific information proves otherwise is indicative of a deep-seated ignorance that I couldn't even begin to relieve. The next time a rape victim is prevented from getting an abortion by her theological state laws or pressure from her religious family, perhaps she'll drop the baby at your door.

[Truthordeal]

THIS is what America and Freedom means to me and I think it's great (or at least interesting)!

Indeed, Translanka. This is the freedom of religion and debate set forth by our founders at work. Me and Zeality will never see eye to eye on the matter of religion, but the robust debate and exchange of ideas is the type of win that all can enjoy.

Heh, it appears as if I won't get to sleep as early tonight. Its 3 AM on the eastern seaboard, and I'm lovin' it right now.

This, I believe, people is the Springtime of Youth at work. Its not only supposed to be developmentally, emotionally and physically stimulating, but intellectually as well. For students, the summer months usually include complacency and the deterioration of the mind. But, as I've said before, even emotionally wrought subjects like this help to stimulate the mind and subvert that deterioration.

It also goes to show the amount of tolerance of the Compendium staff. Any other forum and I would've been booted for saying something contrary to the head honcho. And even though the topic is so problematic, at least we haven't sunk to the level of a screaming match or flame war.

This is the type of intellectual stigma I live for, and to debate someone that actually uses proper grammar is a rare treat on the Internet. The fact is that Zeality is by far my intellectual superior, and any sort of rigorous discourse can only be beneficial.

In any event, I'm heading off to bed. I'll respond to whatever your reply is tomorrow, when I'm in a better mindset to do so.

[Lord J Esq]

You should be warned, Truthordeal, that most of the people on this site who started out being overtly religious on these forums ended up walking away from religion entirely or at least heavily scaling back their degree of religiosity and uncritical devotion to their faith...including ZeaLitY himself. As you go through these debates, you would be well-advised to phrase everything you write sweetly enough so that you won't get a tummyache when you have to eat your words in the years to come.

Hugs and Kisses,

J

[ONSLAUGHT]

I'm sorry ONSLAUGHT and anyone else who thinks this religion (or lack thereof) talk doesn't belong here, but fuck your hotdogs, fireworks and whether or not you should pitch or catch, THIS is what America and Freedom means to me and I think it's great (or at least interesting)!

Alright, if that's what you think it is, then so be it. It's just I hadn't seen a happy looking celebrating post in a bit and it looked more angry as I was skimming. But everything after my post doesn't look pissed off so my caring has left!

note: For safety reasons, I do not condone the literal fucking of hotdogs or fireworks.

\
 

Oh.


Shit.



MITCH! GET THE HELL AWAY FROM THAT BAG RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!

[Truthordeal]

I understand the risks, J.

The moderates enable the extremists. The Catholics who throw a dollar in the collection plate tacitly enable and endorse the Pope's ridiculous actions and hate-speech. Organizations are organizations; the foundation upholds the eye. How much quicker would Sunnis be to condemn their explosive extremists if they weren't religious?

Except that I'm not a Catholic, and that my church dollars go to funding my specific church, or to the three mission trips(one proselytizing, two not). You need to grasp that there are different Christian sects other than Catholicism. Most of them, in fact, split from the Catholic church because of the Pope and his misuse of power back in the Middle Ages.

You're mistaken; there was no vast risk. In fact, the scientists went forward with it because there was no vast risk.

Meh, ok.

This is patently absurd and hilarious, given how much religion has been the cause of war in human history. You're approaching Krispin levels of Christian revisionism, even if you're acknowledging that Christians were brutal in the past. Since when did you gain the moral high ground from the crusades? Christians are still discriminating, endorsing murder (well, scratch that; they're outright murdering), promoting ignorance...nothing has changed except the methods and the laws reining religious excess in.

I'm not revising anything. I'm talking about modern Christians, who appreciate electricity and indoor plumbing, but aren't too crazy about people trying to push free love and sexuality on them.

And most of this worlds wars happened before Christ was born, through the almost constant exchange of power of the Middle East. That wasn't over religion though. That was over land and power and money.

America hasn't engaged in a religious war in its history. American revolution was about freedom, 1812 was about our global standing, Civil War was about slavery and states rights, both wars with Mexico were about land and power, the Spanish American War was mainly caused by William Randolph Hearst and his Yellow Journalism, WWI was caused by Germany's Wulfpac's constantly sinking our boats, WWII was caused by Japan bombing Hawaii, Korea and Vietnam were started by our new-found sense of interventionism, good or bad, and the recent Gulf Wars were a combo of interventionism and jackasses bombing our towers.

Christians aren't murdering or spreading propaganda. Christian extremists are, and my going to my church isn't funding them, because we know well enough to stay out of political nonsense. Christian violent crimes against people are isolated incidents by extremists at best. Once again, you're putting too much emphasis on a label. I could point out every single crime caused by an agnostic or atheist, but quite frankly, that's irrelevant.

Christians have been denying science from the day it threatened its myth. Galileo and the first astronomers were savagely persecuted for proving biblical ideals wrong. But wait, now the universe is "evidence of intelligent design." And electricity? One sect of religious people shun it (the Amish), and yet other Christians use it to reach greater audiences.

Much like every other group in the country. Go to Youtube and search for atheist. You'll find many more of them than Christians. The ratio of Christians/Atheists on the Internet is tipped heavily to your favor.

So Christians should stop using technology because some bad ol' Christians in the past punished Galileo? The Pope in those days was a tyrant sure. But that's what happens when you give a church power over government. Its nothing new. I'm not against technology. I just think we need to use some common sense before building the next Uber-Destructo-Bomb.

Science has always had to thrash against religion, which challenges and subverts it. How wonderful the quality of life we could all be enjoying right now if human curiosity hadn't been so brutally snuffed out by dogma.

I agree. That was wrong.

...You just exceeded the limit. If this is your belief, you've come 10 years too early to argue your case. Return to the debate when you actually display some of this "innate morality" and empathy that Christianity apparently gives you. To deny that even women aren't being oppressed when so much sociological and scientific information proves otherwise is indicative of a deep-seated ignorance that I couldn't even begin to relieve. The next time a rape victim is prevented from getting an abortion by her theological state laws or pressure from her religious family, perhaps she'll drop the baby at your door.

This argument is pretty much useless. The first half is you insulting me, the last bit is about a rape-victim getting an abortion, which, last time I checked, Roe vs. Wade(30 year old case) allows her to do. Hell, in a few states, she can have it killed as its coming out of her womb. Trust me, abortion rights aren't going to be taken away anytime this century.

The only bit of wisdom here is about "sociological and scientific information." So, I did some research.

In Islamic communities, women are oppressed. I don't think we can argue about that. But what does that have to do with Protestant Christianity? You can't show any sort of correlation between the two in modern times. Well, you can, I suppose, but it'll rely on you showing some relationship between picketing against abortion and them killing women who refuse to wear burkas, which, in the end, won't help your case any.

The only real statistic that leads me to believe that women are oppressed in America is wage differences. But religion isn't causing that. Employers that know that they can get away with it are.

But unfortunately, women's rights organizations seem too hell bent on giving women the right to have a doctor snap their baby's neck as it comes out of the womb to put any real effort into trying to rectify that.